


ee 


AS 


APPLIED TO THE QUESTIONS 


BEFORE THE 


OF THE 


EPISCOPAL CHURCH 


OF THE 


¥ 


ky 


Lee 


, CHARLESTON, 8. C: 


WALKER, Evans & CoGsweLt Co., PRINTERS, 
Nos, 3 and 5 Broad and 117 East Bay Streets. 


1887. 


| LAW AND THE GOSPEL 


DIOCESE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 




















‘THE FLOWERS COLLECTION 


THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL. 


' RIGHTS OF CLERGYMEN 


UNDER THE 


CONSTITUTION AND CANONS OF THE CHURCH. 








Tae Exciusion or A CoLtoreD DELEGATE FROM THE Dt0- 
CESAN CONVENTION A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION 
OF THE CHURCH AND OF THE FUNDAMENTAL 
PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIANITY. 





Paes RACE ISSUE SQUARELY MET. 





The following paper was prepared by Col. E. M. Seabrook, 
to be read before the Diocesan Convention ; but the Conven- 
tion having adopted the ten-minute rule of speaking, it 
could not be read, and at the request of his friends, Col. 
Seabrook has consented to its publication : 

How and when is the Conyention organized ? 

This question must be determined by the Constitution 
and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in South 
Carolina. 

The first step in the organization of this Convention, like 
other legislative bodies, is the calling of the body to order, 
and the securing of the necessary officers. Happily this 
Convention is relieved of all embarrassment on this point. 

Article V of the Constitution prescribes that “ the Bishop 
of the Diocese shall be ex officio President of the Conven- 
tion.” 

Article VI, Section 1, prescribes that “the other officers 
of the Diocese shall be a Secretary, a Treasurer and Regis- 
trar.” 


2 


Section 2 prescribes that “the Secretary shall be elected 
at each annual Convention by ballot (unless the ballot be 
unanimously dispensed with,) and shall continue in office 
until his successor be appointed.” 

Section 3 prescribes that “the Treasurer shall be, elected 
in the same manner.” 

Section 4 prescribes that “the Repinimar shall be appeiaiet 
by the Bishop, to serve for three years.” 

This Convention then has its organization completed, so 
far as its officers are concerned. It has a President, Secre- 
tary, Treasurer and Registrar. 

The next question is as to the composition of the Conyen- 
tion : 

Article III of the Constitution determines this question, 
and is as follows: “The Convention shall be composed of 
clegymen and laymen—two distinct orders.” 

Sections 2 and 3 of said Article prescribe what cler- 
gymen shall be entitled to seats in the Convention. See- 
tion 2 prescribes: “That the Bishop, the Assistant Bishop 
(when there is one), and every other clergyman who has* 
been actually as well as canonically, resident within the 
Diocese for the space of twelve calendar months next before 
the meeting of the Convention, and has for the same period 
been performing the duties of his station as rector, minister 
or assistant minister of a parish, or as a missionary acting 
under the ecclesiastical authority of.this Diocese, or as a 
chaplain in any public or benevolent institution, or asa 
professor in the theological seminary of the diocese, or who, - 
after a continued service of at least twenty years in this 
diocese, by the infirmities of health or age may have been 
incapacitated for further active duties of the ministry, and 
has presented his annual report to the ecclesiastical author- 
ity, shall be entitled to all the privileges of a member of — 
the Convention.” 

Section 3 prescribes that “every other clergyman in good 
standing, canonically resident in the Diocese, shall be enti- 
tled to all the privileges of the Convention, except the right 
to vote.” 


”) 


oO 


As to laymen, Section 4 of Article III defines who shall 
be laymen, and is as follows: 

“Lay Deputies, not exceeding jour in number, shall be 
elected by each parish or congregation in union with this 
Convention from among the members thereof to represent it 
in the Convention ; such Deputies shall serve for one stated 
Convention, and shall, before they are: permitted to take 
their seats, produce written testimonials of their election.” 

The next question is: What number of Clergyman and 
Lay Deputies shall constitute a quorum to perfect the or- 
ganization of the Convention and to transact business ? 

Article IV of the Constitution determines this question. 

That Article prescribes that “ten members of the clerical 
order and lay representatives of ten churches shall consti- 
tute a quorum for the transaction of business generally, but 
any number of either order that shall assemble may ad- 
journ from day to day until a quorum is formed.” 

The next question is: How isa quorum to be ascertained ? 

This is also determined by the organic law of the Conven- 

, tion. 

First, as to the Clergy: 

Canon 1 prescribes: “That within one week before the meet- 
ing of every Convention of this Diocese, the Bishop, or if there 
be no Bishop, the Standing Committee shall prepare, or cause 
to be prepared, a list of all clergymen canonically resident 
in the Diocese, annexing the names of their respective par- 
ishes or cures, or of their stations as missionaries, «c., desig- 
nating all those who are entitled to all the privileges of the 
Convention, and those who are entitled to seats but not to 
votes. And such list shall be laid before the Convention im- 
mediately after it shall have been called to order on the first 
day of meeting, and the names of the clerical members 

called therefrom, and it shall be taken as presumptive evi- 
dence of the privileges of clergymen in the Convention: 
Provided, that if question be made, the rights of any clergy- 
man shall be determined according to the provisions of the 
Constitution by the Convention itself, whether his name be 
inserted in the list aforesaid or not,” 


4 


This canon, then, makes it the duty of the Bishop, or, if 3 


there be no Bishop, of the Standing Committee, one week 
before the meeting of every Convention of the Diocese, to 
prepare a list of all clergymen, canonically resident in the 
Diocese, annexing the names of their respective parishes, 
&c., in which they are engaged, &c., designating those who 
are entitled toall the privileges of the Convention, and = 
who are entitled to seats and not to vote. 

And that such list shall be laid before the Convention im- 
mediately after it shall be called to order on the first day of 
the meeting of the Convention, and the names of the clerical 
members called therefrom. 

Second, as to the Laity : 

As we have seen, Section 4, Article ILI, prescribes that 
Lay Deputies, not exceeding four in number, shall be elected 
by each parish or congregation in union with this Conven- 
tion to represent it in the Conyention, and that such Depu- 
ties shall, before they are permitted to take their seats, pro- 
duce written testimonials of their election. 

The list of the Clergymen of the Diocese, entitled to the 
privileges of the Convention, prepared by the Bishop, or the 
Standing Committee if there be no Bishop, and “the written 
testimonials” of the election of the Lay Delegates having 
been laid before the Convention, as prescribed by Canon 1 
and Section 4 of Article III of the Constitution, what is the 
next step in the ascertainment of a quorum and the com- 
pletion of the organization of the Convention ? 

Section 3 of Canon 8 prescribes the modus operandi of 
doing this, and is as follows: “When the Convention shall 
have been called to order, the Secretary shall proceed to eall 
the names of the Clergy, and then of parishes and Deputies, 
after which, if a quorum be found present, the President 
shall declare the Convention duly organized, provided that 
no Deputy whose seat may be contested shall have place on 
his list.” 

What is the object of calling the roll’ It is to ascertain 
whether the number of Clergy and Lay Deputies, required 
by Article IV. of the Constitution to constitute a quorum, is 


ee el et ae 


5 


present. After this duty, imposed upon the Secretary by 
the canon, is performed, and a quorum is found present, 
the canon makes it the duty of the President to declare the Con- 
vention DULY organized.* 

Section 3 of Canon 8, says: “After the names of the 
Clergy and then of parishes and Deputies have been called 
by the Secretary, and a quorum be found present, the Presi- 
dent shall declare the Convention DULY organized.” 

In ascertaining a quorum the clergy whose names are on 
the list of the Bishop, and answering to them, are entitled 
to the privileges of the Convention, because the Canon pre- 
scribes that the list shall be evidence of their right to take their 
seats in the Convention uNtIL their rights are determined by the 
Convention, according to the provision of the Constitution, and 
this even when question is made to the right of a clergyman’s seat. 

And the canon is in accordance with the common law on 
this point, and the pyinciple is this, that when a certain 
duty is imposed by law upon an officer, the presumption is 
that the duty is properly performed until the contrary is 
made to appear. The organic law having imposed upon 
the Bishop the duty of preparing a list of the Clergymen 
in his Diocese entitled to seats in the Convention, and lay- 
ing the same before the Convention, the presumptive evi- 
dence is that the list is correct until the contrary is made 
to appear. 

With regard to the Lay Deputies, the canon expressly 
provides that in ascertaining a quorum upon the roll-call 
of deputies, no deputy whose seat is contested shall have a 
place on the list; in other words, his name shall not be 
counted in ascertaining a quorum. 

His right would have to be determined after the organi- 
zation of the Convention, by the Convention, and upon the 
report of the Committee on Credentials. | Should no ques- 
tion be made as to his right to his seat, the same presump- 
tion holds good as in the case of clergymen; and he holds 





*Notr.—The word duly, according to Webster, means properly, fitly, 
and when a Convention is duly organized the idea of a temporary organ- 
ization is precluded. 


6 


his seat subject to the report of the Committee on Creden- 
tials of Lay Deputies, and the final action of the Convention on 
the same. 

The duty of the President then, under the organic law, as 
soon as a quorum is found to be present by the calling of 
the roll by the Secretary, as prescribed by the Canon, is to 
declare the Convention puLY organized. The rules of order of 
the Convention are in accordance with the above. views. 
The first rule of order is as follows: “ ArreR the Con- 
vention has been DULY organized, and the Committee on Credentials 
appointed, the order of proceedings for the first day shall 
be,” Ke. : 

Will it be said that this would preclude the Convention 
from determining what Clergymen and what Lay Deputies 
are entitled, under the Constitution and Canons, to seats in 
the Convention ? 

Not at all. ; 

Section 4 of the same Canon 8 prescribes that after the 
Convention shall have been declared puty organized by the 
President, Committees on Credentials SHALL THEN be appointed, 
and is as follows: “Two Committees on Credentials SHALL 
THEN BE APPOINTED (that is after the Convention shall have been 
declared DuLy organized), the first consisting of three clergy- 
men, to whom the roll of the Clergy shall be referred; the 
other of three laymen, to whom shall be referred the roll 
of Lay Deputies, together with the certificates of their ap- 
pointment, and the list of the Treasurer required by Canon 
10, Section 11. And these committees respectively shall ex- 
amine forthwith and report. to the Convention upon the 
lists so referred, the latter specifying in their report which 
parishes are entitled to all the privileges of the Convention, 
and which are by Article VIII of the Constitution debarred 
from voting until admitted by a vote of the Convention. 
Should the committee have considered any certificates un- 
satisfactory, these shall be taken up and the question of 
their sufficiency settled.” 

Now what are the duties of these Committees on Creden- 
tials? 


? 


First as to the duty of the committee on the credentials 
of clergymen: 

The Canon determines this. The Canon prescribes that 
the roll of the Clergy shall be referred to this committee. 
What roll? Why the roll of the names of the clerical 
members, who have answered when called by the Secretary 
under Section 8, Canon 38, from the list of the clergymen 
required to be laid before the Convention immediately after 
it shall have been called to order on the first day of its 
meeting by the Bishop, or the Standing Committee, if there 
be no Bishop, as prescribed by Canon 1. 

Now, what is the Committee to report upon? 

Evidently upon the correctness of the roll made by the 
Secretary. ‘The Canon does not impose upon the Committee 
the duty of determining and reporting upon the rights of the 
clergymen to the privileges of the Convention, whose names 
_are on the roll referred to them. The Committee simply re- 
port that the names of the Clergy on the roll made hy the Secretary 
are on the list furnished by the Bishop, and who of them are 
present. ‘The adoption of this report by the Convention is 
simply an endorsement of the correctness of the roll made by the 
Secretary. 

The question here properly arises, has the Convention the 
power to determine the rights of clergymen to the privileges 
of the Convention, and, if so, to what extent? 

Canon 1 determines this. It prescribes that the names of 
the clerical members, called by the Secretary from the list furnished 
by the Bishop, shall be taken as presumptive evidence of the privi- 
leges of clergymen in the Convention, “ provided that if question 
be made, THE RIGHTS OF ANY CLERGYMAN SHALL BE DETER- 
MINED according to the provisions of the Constitution by THE 
CONVENTION ITSELF, (that is as a duly organized body,) 
whether his name be inserted in the list or not.” 

It is evident that the above Canon gives the Convention 
the power of determining the right of any clergyman to the 
privileges of the Convention, whose name is on the roll made 
by the Secretary from the list furnished by the Bishop ; but 
the power is limited to determining whether the clergyman has 


8 


the qualifications required by the Constitution to entitle him to 
the privileges of the Convention. The Convention cannot of 
its own volition, or its ipse divit, entitle him to the privileges of the 
Convention. The Constitution gives him the right to a seat 
under certain qualifications and THE CONVENTION can only pass 
upon his qualifications as prescribed by the Constitution. The 
Convention is a constitutional body, and must be governed in its 
action by its organic laws, viz: 1s CoNSTITUTION AND CANONS. 
When it ceases to do this, or, in other words, “ camps outside 
of its Constitution and Canons,” it zs no longer a constitu- 
tional body. It is only a public assembly, @ revolutionary 
body. It is true that the members of the Convention are not 
required to take an oath to support its Constitution, and 
Canons, as in legislative bodies, but they are, nevertheless, 
under an implied moral obligation to obey and support them, 

as if they had taken a solemn oath so to do. : 

What are the qualifications that entitle a clergyman to the 
privileges of the Convention, as prescribed by its Constitu- 
tion and Canons? 

The first requisite is that he must have been ordained accord- 
ing to the sacred rite of ordination prescribed by the Constitution 
and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States 
of America. The next, that he must be recognized by the Bishop of the 
Diocese. And the last is that he should have been actually, as well 
as canonically, resident within the Diocese for the space of twelve 
calendar months next before the meeting of the Convention, and 
that he should have been for the same period performing the duties 
of his station as rector, minister or assistant minister of a parish. 
Tf the clergyman has the above qualifications, he is entitled to all 
the privileges of the Convention by virtue of the Constitution, and 
cannot be deprived of his privileges by ary vote of the’ Convention, 
Any attempt on the part of the Convention to do this would be 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND REVOLUTIONARY. 

Should the right of any clergyman to the privileges of the 
Convention be questioned, what is the proper mode of pro- 
ceeding? 

I hold that it should be done by a resolution, which 
should state that A, whose name is on the roll of clergymen 


9 


made by the Secretary from the list furnished by the Bishop, 
and reported upon by the Committee upon Credentials, does 
not possess the qualifications required by the Constitution to 
entitle him to the privileges of the Convention. This mode 
of stating the question brings definitely before the Conven- 
tion the issue which only it has the power to decice, viz: 
Whether the clergyman whose right to a seat in the Convention is 
questioned has the necessary qualifications prescribed by the 
Constitution. This resolution may be referred to the Com- 
mittee on Credentials as a special matter, or to a Special 
Committee to report upon. 

As to the Report of the Committee on the Credentials of 
Lay Deputies, Section 4 of Article III of the Constitution 
provides that Lay Deputies, not exceeding four in number, 
shall be elected by each parish in union with the Conven- 
tion to represent it in the Convention; and shall, before they 
are permitted to take their seats, produce written testimoni- 
als of their election. Section 2 of Canon 4 enforces this ar- 
ticle of the Constitution by declaring that it shall be the duty 
of every parish in union with the Convention to send Depu- 
ties to every Convention; and Section 3 of the same Canon 
prescribes the form of the certificate to be presented by the 
Lay Deputies. 

What, then, is it the duty of the Committee to report upon ? 

Section 4 of Canon 8 determines this. It prescribes that 
this Committee shall report: . 

First, whether the parishes, whose representatives claim 
seats in the Convention, are entitled, under Canon 5, to rep- 
resentation in the Convention. 

Second, whether the written testimonials or certificates of 
election presented by them are in accordance with Section 3 
of Canon 4. i 

Upon the report of the Committee the Convention has the 
power to determine whether the parishes claiming represen- 
tation in the Convention have the right to representation 
under the Canon, and whether the certificates of election 
presented by their Deputies are in accordance with the 
Canons. 


10 


If the Lay Deputies to the Convention have the qualifications 
prescribed by the Constitution and Canons, they are entitled 
to their seats, and cannot be deprived of the same by a mere 
vote of the Convention (sua sponte), nor can any one claiming 
a seat be entitled to the privileges of the Conyention, by a 
vote of the Convention, unless he has the qualifications prescribed 
by the Constitution and Canons. 

The report of these Committees are legitimate subjects for 
the consideration of the Convention, and are unquestionably 
in order. 

The question may be raised as to the proper form of stat- - 
ing the question when an appeal is taken from the decision 
of the Chair. 

In legislative bodies the form adopted is: “ Shall the de- 
cision of the Chair be sustained, or shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the house?” The President 
of the Convention is the head and mouthpiece of the body, 
and his rulings or decisions are presumed to be those of the 
body until they are overruled by the body itself. The mode 
of stating the question of appeal as formulated above has 
been adopted by legislative bodies as best adapted to ascer- 
taining the opinion of the majority. In a single body this 
mode of stating the question of appeal unquestionably ascer- 
tains the opinion of the majority ; but in a body composed 
of two orders, voting by orders, it does not. Should the or- 
ders yote differently, the decision of the Chair would be 
overruled when there was not a majority of both orders 
either for or against it. The same result would take place 
should the two orders vote differently, even if the appeal 
from the decision of the Chair be stated in the following 
form, viz: “Shall the appeal from the decision of the Chair 
be sustained?” But I hold that Article VII of the Consti- 
tution relieves the Convention of all embarrassment on this 
point. It prescribes that “ oN ALL QUESTIONS, unless otherwise 
provided by the Constitution (when the Convention votes by 
orders), a majority of both orders shall in each case be NECES- 
SARY TO A DECISION.” 

Now, then, no matter in what form the appeal from the 


11 


decision of the Chair be stated, if the two orders of the Con- 
vention vote differently, the result is that there is no decision by 
the Convention, and there being no decision by the Con- 
vention, it follows that the decision of the Chair will stand 
as the decision of the Convention. 

But, after all, the questions which have’ been considered 
are mere surface questions. There is a question of greater 
import, which underlies them. And it is a question whose 
importance cannot be exaggerated; and that question is the 
race question. It was presented to the Convention of this 
Diocese two years ago by Mr. Benet, of Abbeville, in the 
shape of a resolution to the effect that the Report of the 
Committee on the Credentials of the Clergy be amended by 
striking out the names of the Rey. Messrs. Bishop and Har- 
per, two colored clergymen to the Convention, and referring 
the question of their eligibility to a Committee of Five (two 
clergymen and three laymen) to report to the next Conven- 
tion. This resolution had at least the merit of frankness, 
which cannot be said of the questions subsequently raised, 
as they are designed to accomplish indirectly what this reso- 
lution proposed to do directly. The question is: Shall a 
clergyman, ordained according to the sacred rites of ordination 
prescribed by the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and admitted 
as such into this Diocese by the Bishop of this Diocese, and having 
all the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution and Canons 
of the Episcopal Church of this Diocese, be denied his seat in this 
Convention, simply because his skin is not white? 

I propose to consider this question in-two aspects: First, 
as it effects the Church of this Diocese in its relation to the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of Amer- 
ica, of which it is a constituent part; and, second, as it affects 
this Church as a Christian Charch. 

First. What is the relation of the Episcopal Church of the 
Diocese of South Carolina to the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in the United States of America ? 

The first Article of the Constitution of the Church of this 
Diocese expresses this relation, and is as follows: ‘“ The 


» 


} 


12 


Church of this Diocese accedes to and adopts the Constitution 
and Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
States of America, and acknowledges their authority aceord- 
ingly.” The adoption, then, of the Constitution and 
Canons of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
States of America is the first and fundamental article of the 
Constitution of the Church of this Diocese, and that adop- 
tion makes that Constitution, and those Canons the Constitu- 
tion, and Canons of this Church, and of as paramount 
force as its own Constitution and Canons as long as it re- 
mains a constituent part of the Protestant Episcopal Church 
in the United States of America; and this Church cannot con- 
stitutionally, and legally enact any legislation which violates in 
letter or spirit the Constitution and Canons of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the United States of America. 

Now, Title I, Canon 16 (see Appendix) of the Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the United States enacts that the Bishop 
of every Diocese in union with the Protestant Episcopal Church in 
the United States of America shall deliver to the Secretary of the 
General Convention a list of the names of all the clergymen in 
his Diocese. 

Should the Bishop fail to discharge his duty in reporting 
to the Secretary of the General Convention the name of a 
clergyman whom he had recognized as a clergyman of his 
Diocese, he would render himself liable to a presentment 
for trial under Canon 9, Title II, (see Appendix) of the Pro- 
testant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. 
A Bishop is not tried under the Constitution and Canons 
of the Church of his Diocese, but under those of the Pro- ~ 
testant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. 

Now, then, having received a clergyman into his Diocese 
and reported his name to the Secretary of the General Con- 
vention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
States as a clergyman of his Diocese, how can he possibly 
avoid placing his name on the list of clergymen of his Diocese, as 
required by Canon 1 of this Church, to be laid before the 
Convention of his Diocese? Such a failure of duty would 
not only be a violation of all principle and an unworthy 


13 


abandonment of the official duty of his high and holy: 
office, but, as a violation of the Constitution and Canons of 
his Diocese, would also subject him to trial under Canon 9 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States. 

I trust that history will never record that a Bishop of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America 
will ever so stultify himself and discredit his high and holy 
office. 

Now, take the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal 
Church in the United States of America, and there cannot 
be found one sentence, or word which would countenance 
the idea that it was a race Church ; its whole history refutes 
incontestably such an idea. J¢ bestows upon colored men the 
highest office of the Church, that of Bishop, and commissions them 
as its representatives to preach the Gospel of Christ to all men. 
Under its Constitution and Canons colored men are ordained 
clergymen. How, then, can a Diocese which is a constituent 
part of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
States of America, by the adoption of its Constitution and 
Canons, maintain the position that a clergyman who has 
been regularly ordained under the Constitution and Canons 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of 
America shall not be entitled to the privileges of a clergy- 
man in the Diocese of South Carolina because he is not a 
white man? Why, this would bea species of ecclesiastical 
nullification. How can a Diocese take such a position, 
and expect to be allowed to participate in the government of the 
Episcopal Church of the United States ? 

And again, there is not a Southern Diocese of the Episco- 
pal Church which has occupied such a position. Is this 
Diocese prepared to isolate itself on this question? I trust 
its sober second thought will not permit it to do so, for it is 
a position which cannot be maintained. 

I have heard it said that, if a colored clergyman is ad- 
mitted to a seat in the Convention, it will lead to the social 
_ equality of the white and colored races. It must be confessed 
that when this issaid by grown men, it is with difficulty that 
one’s impatience is restrained. Social equality is governed 


14 


- by laws as fixed as the laws of gravitation. Since the origin 

of man society has formed itself. People of like tastes, 
habits and education associate together, and no laws can 
make it otherwise. 


“Tis the eye of childhood that fears a painted devil.” 


And lastly, I propose to consider this question as it affects 
this Church as a Christian Church, or in its Christian as- 


pect. Ihold that to exclude a clergyman from a seat in 


this Convention—who has been duly ordained under the 
Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church of the 
United States, and who has the qualifications preseribed by 
the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church of this 
Diocese, and whose name has been placed on the list of the 
Bishop—because he is not a white man, is not only a viola- 
tion of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church 
of the United States and also of this Diocese, but it is a vio- 
lation of the fundamental principles of Christianity. 

Before the coming of Christ, religion was national, and 
was moulded by the distinctive character of the respective 
nations. The Hebrews regarded other people as Gentiles, 
the Greeks and Romans regarded other nations as barbari- 
ans and enemies, and as fit subjects for conquest, spoliation 
- and slavery. But with the coming of Christ, a new religious 
era dawned upon mankind. The announcement was made 
to mankind of the sublime doctrine of a God, and Father of 
all, a Saviour of all who believe, and a common inheritance 
for all God's children, and its logical result—the great and 
glorious doctrine of the brotherhood of mankind. In the 
history of man, no human imagination had ever conceived, 
or human lips given utterance to, such a doctrine. It bore 
the impress of divinity. Christ was national, but the world 
was his country, and the human race his countrymen. 
Theologians may invent dogmas and build theological sys- 
tems upon them, and they may change and disappear, but 
this grand doctrine of the brotherhood of mankind enunci- 
ated by Christ—this living principle of Christianity, has 


wa ee 


15 


made it stronger than armies with banners—has made it a 
conqueror in the past, and will make it a conqueror in the 
future, until the last trump shall be sounded, and the whole 
human race be summoned before the judgment seat. I 
would that I had the ability and time to dwell upon this 
subject, and show the wonderful good and countless bless- 
ings that this doctrine has brought to mankind. For some 
of its great results I would refer to the noble Institutions of 
Charity for suffering and sorrowing humanity; tothe grand 
seats of learning for the education and elevation of the 
people. I might dwell upon the efforts of its heroic mis- 
sionaries; upon its beneficent influence in mitigating the 
cruelties of war, and impressing the Spirit of Peace upon all 
nations under its sway; and upon its regenerating power in 
the elevation of woman, and the progress of human liberty. 

But time will only permit me to recall a grand illustration 
of this Divine principle. When our own city, less than a 
year ago, was stricken by a terrible calamity, which brought 
ruin and distress upon her, the hearts of this great American 
people, and even of those in distant lands, were moved in 
generous sympathy. Promptly and freely they lavished 
their treasure upon us for the relief of all sufferers, without 
regard to race or color. It is one of the grandest exhibitions 
in history of that living principle of Christianity, the broth- 
erhood of mankind. It is indeed monumental. 

To make §¢ Christian Church a race Ohurch, is to attempt 
to put back the hands on the clock of time over two thous- 
and years, and to get back to the period before the birth of 
Christ—and this in the Nineteenth Century! It cannot be 
done ; it is an impossibility. — 

I trust that the sober second thought of our brethren of 
the Diocese will enable this Diocese to settle this question, 
and to act in harmony with her sister Dioceses, which com- 
pose the grand and glorious Episcopal Church of the United 
States, in America, and contribute her faithful aid to that 
Church in her great mission of teaching to all mankind 
the doctrines of her Master and founder, Jesus Curis, 


16 


APPENDIX. 


Tite I, Canon 16. 

§1. “The Secretary of the House of Clerical and Lay 
Deputies shall keep a register of all clergy of this Church, 
whose names shall be delivered to him in the following 
manner, that is tosay: Every Bishop of this Chureh, or 
where there is no Bishop, the Standing Committee of the 
Diocese, shall, at the time of every General Convention, de- 
liver, or cause to be delivered, to the said Secretary, a listof 
the names of all the ministers of this Church in their proper 
Diocese, annexing the names of their respective cures, or of 
their stations in any colleges, or other seminaries of learn- 
ing; or in regard to those who have not any cures, or other 
stations, and, also, with particulars of time and place of all 
ministers belonging to the Diaconate, or the Priesthood, or 
have been deposed, or have died since the preceding General 
Convention ; and the said list shall, from time to time, be 
published in the journals of the General Convention.” 


Titte II. 
§1. Any Bishop of this Church may be presented for trial 
on charges for the following offences—offences enumerated— 
among them: “ Violation of the Constitution or Canons of 


the General Convention ;” “ Violation of the Constitution 
and Canons of the Diocese to which he belongs.” 


ADDENDA. 


A STATEMENT OF THE MaIN FACTS AS TO THE ORGANIZA- 
TION OF THE CONVENTION, THE PARLIAMENTARY QUES- 
tions Ratsep THEREIN, AND THE LAw APPLICABLE TO 
THE SAME. 


The Ninety-seventh Convention of the Diocese of South 
Carolina was called to order by the President, the Bishop, 
“ ex-officio,” at the appointed time and place, and the Secre- 
tary proceeded to call the names of the Clergy and then of 
the Parishes and Deputies as required by Canon VIII, Sec- 
tion ITI, and it was found that 36 Clergymen and 58 Lay 
Deputies from 31 Parishes, entitled to representation in the 
Convention, had answered to their names; also, that the seat 
of no Lay Deputy on the Roll of the Secretary was con- 
tested. Article IV of the Constitution prescribing that ten 
members of the Clerical Order and Lay Representatives of 
ten churches shall constitute a quorum, and a constitutional 
quorum being found present, the President in the discharge 
of the duty imposed upon him by Section Ut of Canon VIII, 
declared the Convention duly organized. 

The President then appointed two Committees on Creden- 
tials—one of three Clergymen, to whom the Roll of the 
Clergy was referred, and the other of three Laymen, to whom 
the Roll of the Lay Deputies was referred, with the certifi- 
cates of their appointment and the list of the Treasurer, as 
required by Canon X, Section II. 

The President then read his Annual Address to the Con- 
vention. 

The Committee on Credentials of the Clergy fen made 
their report, to the effect “that the Roll of the Clergy made 
by the Secretary from the List of Clergymen laid before the 
Convention by the Bishop, and answering to their names, 

2 


18 


was correct.” A motion was then made to adopt this report by 
Mr. E. M. Seabrook. After some discussion, Col. J. C. Haskell 
then seconded Mr. Seabrook’s motion for the adoption of the 
report, with the amendment “that the name of the Rey. J. 
H. M. Pollard be stricken from the list.” Amn extended de- 
bate took place upon the merits of the question of admitting 
colored clergymen into the Convention, and lasted to the 
hour of adjournment. 

The Conyention met the next day, pursuant to adjourn- 
ment, additional delegates presented their credentials, and 
the constitutional quorum was still further increased. 

Mr. Benet then moved the previous question, but after 
some discussion withdrew it, and moved that the debate be 
closed, which was carried but by one dissenting voice. 
The motion of Mr. Haskell to amend the Report of the 
Committee on Credentials of the Clergy was then put to the 
Convention, and was lost by the following yote: Clergy, 
yeas, 3; nays, 28. Laymen, yeas, 22; nays, 12. 

The adoption, of the original Report of the Committee, on 
motion of Mr. Seabrook, became the question before the 
Convention; and when the question was being put, on a 
call vote a Orders, Mr. Jervey asked to withdraw the call 
for a vote by Orders, with the intention, as he said, of divid- 
ing the Report. ‘“ He proposed, first, to vote ‘viva voce’ on 
the first roll, viz: of clergymen entitled to a seat, and to a 
vote, concerning which there was no difference of opinion ; 
and then to take up the other roll, on which Mr. Pollard’s 
name appeared.” Upon being informed that he could not 
withdraw the call for a vote by Orders, Mr. Jervey withdrew 


what he had said. Col. MeCrady then renewed the sugges= 


tion of Mr. Jervey. Mr. Seabrook here said that the amend- 
ment of Mr. Haskell, to strike out the name of the Rev. Mr. 
Pollard from the List of the Clergy, having been passed 
upon, and voted down by the Convention, his presumptive 
right to his seat became absolute, and the matter could only 
be brought before the Convention again on a motion to re- 
consider the motion of Mr. Haskell. 

Mr. Haskell expressed his views at some length, and said : 


* 


19 


“hat whilst he was opposed to one name on the list (Mr. 
Pollard’s) he was unwilling to make that the pretext for ob- 
structing or delaying the business of the Convention. The 
question had been fairly put and lost. The clergyman re- 
ferred to (Mr. Pollard) had a clear presumptive right to a 
seat here, and was entitled to it, until he was ousted by a 
majority of the Convention.” Mr. Jervey explained that 
his side only wanted to get the organization of the Conven- 
tion completed, and made some remarks sustaining this 
view. 

Col. McCrady said: “That we only ask that this Conven- 
tion shall -be organized at once before going into that other 
question.” 

The Bishop said: “ This body has been Hecliat duly organ- 
Azed.” 

After remarks by Col. McCrady, Dr. Porter, Rev. Mr. Bel- 
linger, Mr. T. M. Hanckel, Mr. Benetand Rev. Mr. Tilling- 
hast, Mr. Shand moved that the debate be closed and the 
vote taken. Mr. Edward McCrady, Sen., here rose and 
said: ‘‘ Before the voteis taken, just let me say a few words. 
The clergymen, it seems, are forcing us to take somebody in 
that we don’t want. The Bishop said “that the clergymen 
think that you are trying to put some one out, who is already in, 
and entitled to be in.” 

Mr. McCrady then said: “ Well, that is the difference 
between us.” “The Constitution, as it now stands, is inour 
favor, for when it was framed the term clerg yea meant 
white man, and it can’t mean black man now.” 

Mr. Benet here interposed,a point of order, which resulted 
in avote on the motion to divide the question, which was 
lost. : 
The vote was then taken on Mr. Seabrook’s motion to 
adopt the, Report of the Committee on Credentials of the 
Clergy, and it was lost by a non-concurrence of orders. The 
Bishop here arose and said, “that the majority of the two 
orders having failed to concur, the motion is lost. The Chair 
ishappy tostate, however, that the Convention is duly organized, 
and is ready for any business that may come before it.” 


20 


The Rev. Mr. Joyner here arose to make a motion, 
when Mr. Jervey arose, and said “that the Parish of 
St. Michael’s appeals from the decision of the chair.” 
The Bishop then said: ‘ The chair has made no deei- 
sion. It only stated the Canon which affirms that the 
house is duly organized If any appeal is made, i must be 
an appeal from the Constitution and Canons, not from the 
Bishop, for he has made no decision.” Mr. Jervey said: “ A 
delegate arose to make a motion, I say he is out of order. 
He says he is in order. Is not that a decision?” The 
Bishop said: “ Under the Constitution and Canons, I say he is 
in order.” Mr. Jervey said, “ Well, I appeal from that 
ruling.” 

A delegate here arose and wanted to know how the motion 
proposed by the clerical delegate could be out of order when he had 
not made it. 

Mr. Jervey replied: “That his point of order was, that the 
delegate was out of order, no matter what motion he made.” 

Dr. Porter said: “ Well, if he can’t make a motion, how 


can you make a point of order.” It was finally decided to — 


hear the proposed motion of Rev. Mr. Joyner, who had first 
obtained the floor. The Rey. Mr. Joyner arose and said: 
“That the motion he intended to propose was that a portion of 
Bishop’s Address be referred to a Special Committee to re- 
port to the Convention at a night session.” Mr. Jervey 
said: “I make the point of order that the gentleman’s mo- 
tion is out of order.” 

The Bishop said: “ On what grounds?” 

Mr. Jervey said: “On the ground that the Convention is 
not organized.” 


The Bishop said: “If the Convention is not orgaiibell 


how can the appeal be considered ?” 

A discussion now followed on Parliamentary Law, when 
the Convention adjourned until 6 o’clock P. M. 

The Convention was called to order pursuant to adjourn- 


ment. The Bishop then said that the question before the © 


Convention was upon the appeal of St. Michael’s Church 
from the ruling of the Chair. 


be 


21 


Mr. J. J. P. Smith and the Rey. Mr. Bellinger then ad- 
dressed the Convention. 

The Bishop, before putting the question, said: “That after 
thinking over the matter, he had come to the conclusion, 
that he might have made a.mistake in entertaining the appeal ; 
that two days had been spent in fruitless discussion of 
this matter; and that he would take occasion to announce 
now that after the vote on this appeal, he would receive no 
further appeals in reference to the organization of the Con- 
vention, but would go on with the regular business.” 

The question of appeal was put in this form: “Shall the 
decision of the Chair stand as the sense of the house ?” 

There was a vote taken by orders, and a failure of con- 
currenee. The Bishop announced the vote, and said the 
ruling of the Chair had not been sustained. This was an 
error on the part of the Bishop. ‘According to Parliamen- 
tary Law governing a single body, this is correct; but the 
Convention was composed of two orders, and the Constitu- 
.tion prescribed the Parliamentary Law, applicable to this 
point. Article VII, Section I (of this Church) prescribes: 
“ That on all questions, unless otherwise provided by the Constitu- 
(ton, the members shall deliberate and vote as one body, but at any 
time, before the result of the vote as taken, is finally announced 
by the President, any two CLERGYMEN or the Deputies from any 
two CHURCHES, may call for a separate vote of each order, when 
the Clergy shall vote INDIVIDUALLY, and the Lay Deputies by 
Churches (a majority of each Church having one vote) AND A 
MAJORITY IN BOTH ORDERS SHALL IN EACH CASE BE NECESSARY 
To A DECISION.” Now then, a majority of both orders being 
necessary under the Constitution to a decision, and there 
being no decision by the Convention, the ruling of the 
Chair stood as the ruling of the Convention. 

The Bishop then instructed the Secretary to read the 
Rules of Order, this being the first business in the order of 
proceedings, prescribed by the Rules of Order. The Secre- 
tary had proceeded with the reading of the Rules of Order, 
when he was interrupted by Mr. McCrady, who said: ‘ Mr. 
President, I rise to.a point of order.’ The Bishop said : 


22 


“What is your point of order?” Mr. McCrady said: “The 


Convention is not organized, and any business ”"—— 
The Bishop here said: “Go on with the reading of cd 
rules, Mr. Secretary.” 


Mr. MecCrady said: “I appeal from the decision of the 


Chair.” 

The Bishop said: “ That the Chair has already stated that 
the Convention is duly organized, and that it will entertain 
no other motion or appeals that tend to question its ariel 
zation.” 


Mr. McCrady said: “ But, Mr. President, let me tell you: ‘ 


sir, that the right of appeal is an inherent one, and no dele- 
gate to this Convention can be deprived of it by anybody. 
If this is attempted it will break up the Convention.” 

The Bishop said: ‘Go on with the reading of the rules, 
Mr. Secretary,” which the Secretary did. ; 

A Delegate then moved that the reading of the rules be 
dispensed with, and the motion was at once adopted. 

The Hon. C.G. Memminger then sent up the following 
paper, with the request that it should be read by the Secre- 
tary. 

“The Lay Delegates of St. Paul’s Chueh Radcliffeboro, 
finding it impracticable to organize the Convention accord- 
ing to the Constitution and Canons of the Church, deem it 
wise to withdraw, and hereby notify their colleagues of their 
intention.” 

Lay Delegates from other Parishes followed suit, leaving 
present and answering to their names upon a roll eall 28 
Clergymen, 21 Lay Deputies, representing 13 Parishes— 
more than a constitutional majority. ° 

The Convention then proceeded with the usual business 
until 7:30 o’clock P. M., when it adjourned until the next 
day at the usual hour. The Convention met pursuant to 
adjournment and proceeded with its regular business. 

The Rev. Mr. Tillinghast offered the following resolution, 
which was unanimously adopted : 


“Resolved, That this Convention profoundly regrets the 
action of the Deputies from certain Parishes in wih 


23 


from the Convention yesterday evening, and affectionately 
and most earnestly requests their brethren to reconsider their 


‘action and to resume their seats in the Convention.” 


“Resolved, That this resolution be presented to our absent 
brethren by a Committee to be appointed by the Chair.” 


The Bishop appointed the following Committee: The 
Rey. Mr. Tillinghast, Col. E. M. Rucker and the Rev. John 
Kershaw. 

The Committee reported the following resolution as the 


. reply of the seceding brethren : 


“Resolved, That we accede to the request submitted to us 
by the Committee, provided that when we return and re- 
sume our seats in the Convention the President of the Con- 
vention shall entertain the appeal taken by Mr. McCrady 
yesterday, and Salah forthwith put the question to the Con- 
vention.” 


The tollowing resolution was then offered by Col. E. M. 
Rucker: 


Resolved, That the Convention having heard the Report 
of the Committee appointed by our brethren who withdrew 
yesterday evening from this body, regrets that they find 
pies pe: unable to accede to the proviso therein con- 

tained.’ 


This Resolution was seconded by Ex-Governor Manning. 
Mr. Haskell then offered the following substitute for the 
resolution : 


Resolved. “ That, while the proposition made by the with- 
drawing members cannot be accepted, this Convention 
offers, if they will return, to reconsider the action taken 


since their withdrawal, that they may have a voice on all 


questions, and in all elections.” 


This was laid on the table by a vote of the Convention. 

All the regular business of the Convention was then pro- 
ceeded with, until it was completed. 

The Bishop then addressed the Convention expressing 
his profound regret at what had taken place, and giving his 
viéws as to the situation and his duties. 


24 


The Convention was then adjourned, to meet at Andesns 
on the first Wednesday in May, 1888. 

These facts are collated from: the stenographie sepeatian 
The News and Courier, and are believed to be substantially 
correct. 

What are the salient facts to be deduced from the pro- 
ceeding of the Convention as set forth above? They are as 
follows: 

The Convention was duly called to order by the officer — 
designated by the Constitution. 

The Secretary designated by the Constitution then, in 
pursuance of the duty imposed upon him by the Canon, 
called the Roll of Clergymen and Lay Deputies to ascertain 
if the Constitutional majority was present. Upon the roll 
call, it was ascertained that there were present thirty-six 
Clergymen and Lay Deputies from thirty-one Parishes, en- 
titled to representation in the Convention. 

The President then declared the Convention duly organ- 
ized in pursance of Section III, Canon VIII. 

There was no question made to the declaration of the 
President, that the Convention was duly organized. The 
Convention acquiesced in it, and by its acquiescence, made 
the declaration of the President, its declaration, as much so as 
if it had passed a resolution declaring itself duly organized. 

The organization of the Convention became then a fixed 
fact, “ves adjudicata,” legally ascertained. 

The President then proceeded to appoint Committees on 
Credentials of Clergymen and Lay Deputies, which could 
not be done until the Convention was organized, as prescribed by 
Section IV, Canon VIII. . 

The Convention also acquiesced in this proceeding, with- 
out any objection being made as to its organization. The 
Bishop then delivered his address to the Convention, with- 
out a word of dissent as to its organization. The Commit- 
tee on Credentials of Clergymen then made their report, 
endorsing the correctness of the roll made by the Secretary - 
from the list furnished by the Bishop. The report was re- 


ue’ 


25 
ceived by the Convention without a question as to its 
organization. | 

A motion was made for the adoption of the report, which 
motion was entertained by the Convention without any ob- 
jection as to its organization. 

A motion was made by Mr. Haskell to strike the name of 
Mr. Pollard (a colored clergyman) from the Roll of Clergy- 
men made by the Secretary, and reported by the Committee 
as correct. 

This motion was entertained by the Convention and 
debatéd at length, and voted upon by the Convention by 
Orders, without question as to its organization. 

The Convention having declined to unseat Mr. Pollard, 


_ whose presumptive right to a seat in the Convention, under 


the Constitution of the Church was questioned, and the 
views of the party who wished to oust him on the ground 
of his color having been defeated, the question was made 


for the first time that the Convention was not duly organized, 


and could do no business until it was duly organized. 

The proposition amounted to this: That a Convention 
which had been regularly called to order, which had its constt- 
TUTIONAL OFFICERS, and more than thrice its constitutional quo- 
rum, which had been declared duly organized by its constitutional 
President—which had acquiesced in that declaration, and had 
further endorsed it by proceeding to business for more than a day 
and a half, should not only stultify dtself, but that rt should also 
disorganize itself ; in a word, commit official suicide. 

Such a proposition did not come under any rules of order, 
it was outside of all rules of order; i was a revolutionary 
proposition, and the President was right in declining to put 
it before the Convention. In the whole history of legisla- 
tive bodies, there cannot be found an instance like this. 

What was the object of this revolutionary proposition ? 
Its object was, by obstructing all business, to force the Con- 
VENTION to adopt the views of the party which had been defeated, 


and thus compel it to stultify itself and commit official suicide. 


_ The President declined to put any more revolutionary 
propositions of this nature before the Convention, and so 


Y 26 


announced his intention, and instructed the Secretary to 
read the Rules of Order, which was the next business in 
order, under the “ Rules of Order” of the Convention. 

The Secretary was reading the Rules of Order when he 
was interrupted by Mr. MeCrady, who said: “ Mr. President, 
let me tell you, sir, that the right of appeal is an inherent 
one, and no delegate to this Convention can be deprived of 
it by any one. If this is attempted, it will break up the 
Convention.” 

The President had declined to put any more per 
ary motions before the Convention, and in the exereise of 
his unquestionable official prerogatives had instructed the 
Secretary to read the Rules of Order, (which he was doing) 
when this interruption took place. There was no question 
before the body, and hence there was nothing to appeal from. 

Our beloved Bishop, as President of the Convention, sim- 
ply did his duty asa conscientious, enlightened, heroic 
Christian man and officer, and in a manner worthy of his 
high and holy office, proving himself a fit suecessor of the 
Right Rev. Thomas F. Davis, a man of apostolic character, 
whose wisdom was only equalled by his saintliness. And 
so the impartial verdiet of history will write it. — 

Norr.—Bishop Davis was the author of the move for the 
admission of St. Marks into the Convention of this Church. 

To charge the Bishop with tyranny !! 

Why, the real tyranny attempted was on the part of 
those, who, when their views had been defeated, aimed to 
force the Convention to adopt them by revolutionary proceedings. 

But, it was contended, that the Convention was not duly 
lorganized, because one clergyman (out of 36), who had a pre- 
sumptive right to a seat in the Convention under the Con- 


stitution of the Church, was not a white man, and this onthe — 


ground that the word Clergyman in the Constitution meant 
white man. It was contended that the present Constitution 
of the Diocese was the Constitution of 1789, and that the 
word Clergyman at that time meant white man. The word 


Clergyman in 1789 could not mean anything but white man. 


The slave trade at that time was in full activity, and the 





27 


colored man was but a chattel,so much so, that the killing of 


‘him was not murder, but was only punishable by fine, a 


matter of dollars and cents 

In 1876 the present Constitution was adopted. The pres- 
ent Constitution is substantially the Constitution of 1789, 
with amendments. The phraseology of the present Consti- 
tution is taken from the Constitution of 1789, but the Con- 
stitution is that of 1876, and when the question of its inter- 
pretation arises, it must be interpreted according to the circum- 
stances which existed in 1876, when it was adopted, and 
not according to thosewhich existed in 1789. Now, then, what 
what were the circumstances which existed in 1876, when 
the present Constitution of this Diocese was adopted, and 
what in the light of those circumstances is the meaning to 
be attached to the word Clergyman in the Constitution of 
1876? In 1876, slavery had been abolished. The colored 
man,had been invested with civil and political rights, and 
was before the law the equal of the white man. ‘Now, then, 


-could the men who adopted the Constitution of 1876, under 


the radical change of circumstances which had _ occurred, 
have intended that the word Clergyman in that Constitution 
should bear the same exclusive meaning as it did in 1789, 
when the colored man was a chattel ? 

It is submitted that there isno rule of legal construction 
which would sustain such an interpretation. The state- 
ment of the proposition makes the argument. 

Notre.—The list of the names of the Clergymen of the 
Diocese, which the Bishop lays before the Convention, as 
required by the Canon, constitutes the credentials of the 
Clergymen, gives them a presumptive right to their seats, 
and that presumptive right holds good, even if the right of 
any Clergyman to his seat be questioned until his qualifications 
under the Constitution are passed upon by the Convention after 
at is duly organized. 

The certificates of the election of Lay Deputies constitute 
the credentials of the Lay Deputies, and give them a pre- 
sumptive right to their seats, which becomes absolute if their 
seats are not contested. 






x r y 
a 
. ed ay 
; a? ne Susy! 
, ATS 
. Ares 
Pi 
28 a 
v ‘a 


a 


If their seats are contested, the Canon pre 
names shall not be placed on the Roll of th 
other words, that they shail not take their s 
qualifications are passed upon by the Convei 


organized body. — ~ rips 








